Aleesha Shafique
Pakistan’s political landscape has long been defined by the pervasive influence of its military establishment. The recent transition of power, which saw Shahbaz Sharif ascend to the prime ministerial office following the suspension of Imran Khan, underscores the enduring role of the military in shaping governance. This change, widely perceived as orchestrated by then-Chief of Army Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa, reflects the systemic entanglement between Pakistan’s civilian political institutions and its military. Central to this crisis was a growing rift between Imran Khan and General Bajwa, exacerbated by disagreements over key national issues, including the contentious appointment of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief. Such developments illuminate the military’s continuing dominance, a trend deeply rooted in Pakistan’s historical and institutional frameworks.
The military’s involvement in Pakistan’s politics dates back to the nation’s early years following independence in 1947. A combination of weak civilian institutions, political instability, and external security challenges created an environment where the military emerged as a central powerbroker. This dominance was formalized with Pakistan’s first military coup in 1958, led by General Ayub Khan. The coup dismantled the constitutional order established by the 1956 Constitution and set a precedent for repeated military interventions. Over the decades, Pakistan has witnessed three significant coups—in 1958, 1977, and 1999—each of which underscored the fragility of its democratic framework.
Under General Ayub Khan and his successor General Yahya Khan, the military institutionalized its control over governance. Ayub Khan’s era saw an effort to legitimize military rule through economic and administrative reforms, yet his regime failed to address the growing political and regional disparities within Pakistan. Yahya Khan’s tenure culminated in the catastrophic loss of East Pakistan in the 1971 war, a defining moment that marked the limits of military rule and exposed the vulnerabilities of Pakistan’s political and military structures.
The return to civilian rule in 1972 under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was short-lived. General Zia-ul-Haq’s coup in 1977 marked the beginning of a prolonged period of military dominance, characterized by the expansion of the military’s influence beyond defense into civil administration, education, infrastructure, and economic planning. Zia’s regime also entrenched the military’s role in shaping Pakistan’s ideological and foreign policy direction, particularly through its support for the Afghan jihad against Soviet forces, which deepened ties with Islamist groups and fostered a complex security landscape.
The third military intervention in 1999, led by General Pervez Musharraf, reinforced the army’s grip on Pakistan’s political institutions. Musharraf’s rule institutionalized mechanisms that entrenched the military’s role in policy-making, such as the establishment of the National Security Council. Simultaneously, the National Accountability Bureau was used as a tool to marginalize opposition leaders, further consolidating military control. Despite Musharraf’s promises of economic growth and modernization, his tenure exemplified the challenges of military rule, including political suppression, lack of accountability, and weakened democratic institutions.
The recurring involvement of the military in civilian governance has significant ramifications for Pakistan’s democracy. The military’s primary mandate is to safeguard the nation’s sovereignty and defend its borders. However, its frequent incursions into civil administration undermine this role and lead to a range of adverse consequences. Excessive military involvement in governance diverts its focus from national security, dilutes professionalism, and increases the risk of corruption. Furthermore, military dominance fosters mistrust between civilian leaders and military officials, weakening state institutions and national cohesion.
The political implications of military rule extend far beyond administrative inefficiencies. Military interventions erode public trust in democratic institutions such as the judiciary and parliament. The suppression of democratic freedoms, including press liberties and civil rights, creates an environment where dissent is stifled, and accountability is absent. This authoritarian culture not only weakens the rule of law but also hampers the development of a robust and participatory political culture. Moreover, the military’s involvement in areas like bureaucracy, law enforcement, and intelligence consolidates its influence, further marginalizing civilian oversight and creating a parallel power structure.
Economically, prolonged military dominance has detrimental effects. Military regimes, often operating without legislative oversight, lack the accountability mechanisms necessary for transparent governance. This lack of accountability facilitates corruption and mismanagement, resulting in economic stagnation. Internationally, military takeovers damage Pakistan’s credibility, leading to diplomatic isolation and economic sanctions. These external pressures exacerbate domestic challenges, including poverty, unemployment, and social unrest, which undermine long-term development.
The recent political developments in Pakistan, culminating in the installation of Shahbaz Sharif as prime minister, highlight the enduring challenge of civil-military relations. While the military does not directly govern, its influence over political transitions and key policy decisions underscores its entrenched role in the political system. This dominance poses a significant obstacle to Pakistan’s democratic consolidation. Civilian governments often struggle to assert authority over military institutions, creating an imbalance that perpetuates cycles of political instability and authoritarianism.
Addressing the military’s role in politics requires comprehensive reforms aimed at strengthening civilian institutions. Efforts must focus on enhancing the capacity and independence of democratic structures, including the judiciary, parliament, and electoral bodies. Institutional reforms should also ensure transparency and accountability within the military, limiting its involvement in non-military domains. Additionally, fostering a political culture that prioritizes dialogue and consensus-building is essential to reducing the appeal of military intervention as a solution to political crises.
The military’s dominance in Pakistan’s politics reflects broader structural challenges that have defined the country’s post-independence history. While the military has played a central role in shaping national security and foreign policy, its involvement in governance has often come at the expense of democratic development. The events surrounding the recent transition of power underscore the pressing need for Pakistan to redefine its civil-military relations. Achieving this balance is critical not only for democratic consolidation but also for ensuring long-term stability and prosperity. In the absence of meaningful reforms, the cycle of political instability and military dominance is likely to persist, undermining Pakistan’s potential as a democratic state.
Aleesha Shafique
Student BS English at University of Sahiwal
